Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Project 2025: Part II

Project 2025: Part II

The inauguration of Donald Trump.

Getty Images / The Washington Post

Last spring and summer, The Fulcrum published a 30-part series on Project 2025.

For those of you not familiar with Project 2025, it is a playbook written in late 2024, specifically created for Donald Trump to use as a guideline for his first 180 days in office should he win the November election. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, proudly took credit for facilitating the creation of the 887-page documentary.


Project 2025’s two editors were assisted by 34 authors, 277 contributors, a 54-member advisory board, and a coalition of over 100 conservative organizations (including ALEC, The Heartland Institute, Liberty University, Middle East Forum, Moms for Liberty, the NRA, Pro-Life America and the Tea Party Patriots).

At the time, those from the left and the right were making assumptions about the meaning and impact of Project 2025. The Fulcrum felt a different approach was needed and proceeded to publish 30 columns over a three-month period, analyzing Project 2025 from a cross-partisan perspective, void of pre-determined left or right solutions. We felt this would serve as a guide for citizens and our elected representatives to ensure the healthy democratic republic we all desire.

Now that Trump has been Elected- Project 2025- Part II

Now that Donald Trump has been elected president, it is time for “Project 2025 Part II” to determine if last year's speculation as to what might be implemented from Project 2025 is actually being implemented or in the process of being implemented.

During his 2024 presidential campaign, then-candidate Trump distanced himself from the initiative, calling parts of it "ridiculous and abysmal". However, recently, he praised some aspects of the policy agenda, describing parts of it as "very conservative and very good".

Actions speak louder than words and despite his previous disavowals, many of Trump's early actions in his second term align with the Project 2025 agenda, including sweeping deregulation measures and aggressive immigration reform.

Already, the Trump administration has taken several actions that align with Project 2025. Here are a few notable examples:

  • Deregulation Measures: Trump has issued executive orders rolling back numerous regulations, which is a key component of Project 2025's agenda.
  • Immigration Reform: The administration has implemented stricter immigration policies, including measures to curb illegal immigration and enhance border security.
  • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): Trump established a review council to advise on FEMA's ability to address disasters, echoing Project 2025's recommendation to shift more disaster response responsibilities to states.
  • Gender Policies: An executive order was signed, recognizing only two sexes, male and female, which aligns with Project 2025's stance on gender issues.

These actions reflect the influence of Project 2025's policy blueprint on Trump's administration, and starting soon, the Fulcrum will again publish detailed reports on each of the federal departments being impacted by Project 2025.

If we are to have a healthy and thriving democratic republic, we need a “Cross-Partisan Project 2025,” and as we did last summer, we will ask many important questions on the various components being implemented:

  • What's dividing Americans on critical issues?
  • Which information presented by Project 2025 is factual and to be trusted, and what is not?
  • What is oversimplified about Project 2025’s representation and perspective, and what is not? What are alternative solutions?
  • What do people from all sides of the political spectrum need to understand to address salient points of Project 2025 in a critical-thinking manner?
  • What are the questions nobody's asking?

We will, once again, explore the nuances and complexities of the subjects and issues covered in the implementation of components of the Project 2025 plan.

We will not shy away from Project 2025’s most controversial components and will call attention to dangerous thinking that threatens our democracy when we see it. However, in doing so, we are committing to not employing accusations, innuendos or misinformation. We will advocate for intellectual honesty to inform and persuade effectively.

The second phase of our Cross-Partisan Project 2025 series offers The Fulcrum a unique opportunity to provide reporting that banishes the old ways of demonizing “the other side.” We will be committed to implementing critical thinking, reexamining outdated assumptions, and using reason, scientific evidence, and data in formulating and testing public policy for 2025 and beyond. Our reporting and analysis will be based on a philosophy that seeks out diverse perspectives and experiences to find common ground.

Our nation needs to reshape our collective sense of civic responsibility, community building and political engagement. We must nurture new generations of thoughtful citizens and committed leaders who will promote a multidimensional approach to America's most important domestic and foreign policy issues.

That is the goal of Part II of “The Fulcrum’s Cross-Partisan Project 2025”

Samples of Phase 1 articles about Project 2025

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Read More

United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

TGI /Tetra Images

Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less
Bill of Rights
Happy 230th birthday, Bill of Rights
leezsnow/Getty Images

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the first of three parts exploring “Article the First,” the forgotten proposal in the original Bill of Rights. For 237 years, a single, inverted word has created a “semantic illusion,” leading historians and policymakers to misread the founders' intended guarantee of a growing House as a ceiling. This series uncovers the error, tracks its consequences, and explores why reclaiming the founders’ original vision is the path to meaningful representation reform.

Part 1 — The Inverted Word

Keep ReadingShow less